High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-02-03Writ petition allowed to the extent stated; Ext...

Rani S. Gangadhar v State of Kerala, Mynagappally Grama Panchayat and Mynagappally Grama Panchayat Committee

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 13071 OF 2021

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Sunil Thomas
Judgment Date: 2022-02-03
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is allowed to the extent stated: Ext.P3 is quashed and the petitioner is permitted to continue in service till 31.03.2022. It is clarified that this relief does not bar the Panchayat from taking disciplinary action for any proved misconduct before that date. The observations about Ext.P4 apply only to the post notified of the accredited overseer (SC).
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed to the extent stated; Ext.P3 quashed; petitioner to continue in service till 31.03.2022; observations on Ext.P4 limited to the post of accredited overseer (SC).

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

RANI S.GANGADHAR AGED 34 YEARS W/O. LENJITH, ACCREDITED OVERSEER, MYNAGAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MYNAGAPPALLY P.O, KOLLAM-690 519

Respondents

THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
MYNAGAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MYNAGAPPALLY P.O, KOLLAM-690 519, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
THE GRAMA PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE, MYNAGAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MYNAGAPPALLY P.O, KOLLAM-690 519, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv K.JAGADEESH

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. SMT. Rekha S., Senior, GP
• Sri. M.R. SASITH

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition (WP(C) 13071/2021) concerns the termination of an accredited overseer under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Scheme (MGNRES) engaged by Mynagappally Grama Panchayat. The petitioner, Rani S. Gangadhar, appointed in 2015 for a one-year term, had her contract extended over time, with the last extension contemplated to end on 31.03.2021. The service was terminated by non-renewal through Ext.P3 dated 24.05.2021. The petitioner challenges Ext.P3, relying on Ext.P2, Government Order G.O.(Rt.) No.1149/2021/L.S.G.D., dated 15.06.2021, which purportedly extends the term of MGNRES employees whose contracts were due to expire before 31.03.2022 to that date. The respondents contend that Ext.P2 post-dates Ext.P3 and, moreover, a new employee had already taken charge on 06.07.2021 (Ext.P4), rendering the petition infructuous. They also argue that the petitioner faced misconduct allegations (as per Ext.R2(d)) and that show-cause notices were issued, with no proper inquiry conducted. The court notes Ext.P2’s broad extension and that Ext.P3 may be punitive in nature but finds Ext.P2 operative, extending the petitioner’s contract to 31.03.2022. Consequently, Ext.P3 is quashed, and the petitioner is allowed to continue in service till 31.03.2022, with caveats for possible disciplinary action. The observations regarding Ext.P4 apply solely to the post of accredited overseer (SC).

Provisions of Law Cited

G.O.(Rt.) No.1149/2021/L.S.G.D., dated 15.06.2021

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner submits that Ext.P3 (termination by non-renewal) is not legally sustainable in light of Ext.P2, which extends contracts expiring before 31.03.2022 to that date. She contends that she continued in service until 25.05.2021, and Ext.P3 predates or undermines Ext.P2; Ext.P2’s implicit retroactivity covers contracts terminated within the period, thereby preserving the petitioner’s position through 31.03.2022. She asserts that Ext.P3, being a potential disciplinary measure, lacked any prior enquiry or show-cause procedure, making it vulnerable to invalidation and that the interim order’s effect should preserve her status pending the writ petition. She also notes that Ext.P4 relates to another post and should not defeat the petition’s challenge to Ext.P3.

Contentions of Respondents

The Panchayat argues the petition is infructuous since a new employee took charge on 06.07.2021 (Ext.P4). Ext.P2 post-dates Ext.P3 and cannot revive it; show-cause notices and alleged misconduct are the basis for the termination, but there was no formal disciplinary inquiry. They invoke Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India to emphasize due-process concerns, and contend that Ext.P2’s later order cannot operate retroactively to sustain the termination. They maintain that the writ petition should be dismissed or, at best, limitedly allowed, keeping in view the potential misconduct and the absence of a prior enquiry.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India	2007 (8) SCC 449	Mentioned Only	Cited by respondents to argue due-process concerns and potential dismissal without inquiry; not treated as controlling authority in the court’s decision; the outcome rests on Ext.P2’s extension and Ext.P3’s quashing.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Rani S. Gangadhar v State of Kerala, Mynagappally Grama Panchayat and Mynagappally Grama Panchayat Committee and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS** **THURSDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 14TH MAGHA, 1943** ## **WP(C) NO. 13071 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER:** **1 RANI S.GANGADHAR AGED 34 YEARS W/O. LENJITH, ACCREDITED OVERSEER, MYNAGAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MYNAGAPPALLY P.O, KOLLAM-690 519, RESIDING AT R.S.G. BHAVAN, MUTHUPILAKKADU EAST, PORUVAZHY P.O, KOLLAM-690 520** ## **BY ADV K.JAGADEESH** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001** - **2 MYNAGAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MYNAGAPPALLY P.O, KOLLAM-690 519, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** - **3 THE GRAMA PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE, MYNAGAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MYNAGAPPALLY P.O, KOLLAM-690 519, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.** **BY ADV. SMT. REKHA S., SENIOR, GP SRI. M.R.SASITH** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON** **03.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WPC NO.13071 OF 2021 2 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Dated this the 03[rd] day of February, 2022** The writ petitioner was appointed as an accredited overseer under the second respondent Grama Panchayat by Ext.P1, dated 11.11.2015, for a period of one year, for implementation of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Scheme (MGNRES). Her service was extended from time to time. It seems that the term of contract expired in March 2021, which remained not renewed for some time. There is no dispute that the petitioner continued some time thereafter. Ultimately, by Ext.P3 communication dated 24-05-2021, her service was terminated by non renewal of contract of employment. Challenging Ext.P3, the petitioner has approached this Court essentially relying on Ext.P2 Government Order G.O.(Rt.) No.1149/2021/L.S.G.D. dated 15.06.2021. 2. By virtue of Ext.P2, the term of contract WPC NO.13071 OF 2021 3 employees engaged for implementation of MGNRES which were to expire prior to 31.03.2022 were extended till 31.03.2022. 3. Opposing the application, the learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat contended that the writ petition has become infructuous in so far as, pursuant to Ext.P4 notification, a new employee has taken charge on 06.07.2021. It was further contended that the petitioner cannot place reliance on Ext.P2, which is dated 15.06.2021 and that came into force after Ext.P3 dated 24.05.2021. It was further contended that the petitioner suppressed the material fact, that show cause notices were issued to her alleging misconduct. It was disclosed by the respondent Panchayat in their counter affidavit. To buttress the argument that on that ground alone the writ petition is liable to be rejected, the learned Counsel placed reliance on decision of the Supreme Court in _**Prestige Lights Ltd. vs. State Bank of India [2007 (8) SCC 449]**_ . It was further WPC NO.13071 OF 2021 4 contended by the learned Counsel that the petitioner has committed mis-conduct for which show cause notices were issued and since her replies were not satisfactory, she was terminated from service by Ext.P3. 4. Ext.P3 order is definitely prior to Ext.P2. It is also not in dispute that petitioner continued in service till 25.05.2021. The crucial question is whether the petitioner is entitled to claim the benefit of Ext.P2 in the above circumstance and whether the contention of the Panchayat that since Ext.P2 came into existence subsequent to Ext.P3, no reliance can be placed on it. Ext.P2 clearly show that all the employees whose services were to expire prior to 31.03.2022, stood extended till 31.03.2022. It clearly covers all the agreements entered into prior to 31.03.2021 by which the termination period fell within 31.03.2021 and 31.03.2022. Though no retrospective operation is seen mentioned, by implication, Ext.P2 takes in all contracts which WPC NO.13071 OF 2021 5 expired even prior to the above notification. Clearly, case of the petitioner though stood terminated by Ext.P3, stands benefited by Ext.P2 in the above circumstances. 5. The above contention has to be appreciated in another angle also. Ext.P3 on the face of it seems to be innocuous order of termination due to non renewal of contract of employment. However, Ext.R2(d) minutes of the Panchayat meeting dated 24.05.2021 clearly refers to certain mis-conducts alleged against the petitioner. In the light of the above allegations, it was resolved not to extend the term of the contract. If that is accepted, clearly Ext.P3 is in the nature of a punitive punishment for a mis-conduct. However, the petitioner was not given a show cause notice as to why disciplinary proceedings shall be taken against her. Notices were replied earlier and the Panchayat did not proceed to conduct an enquiry and to establish the mis-conduct alleged against her. No charges were also framed against WPC NO.13071 OF 2021 6 her. In the light of the above, Ext.P3 is not legally sustainable and is liable to be set aside. 6. Contention of the learned Counsel for the Panchayat that since a new employee has taken charge on 06.07.2021, the writ petition has become infructuous, cannot also survive. This is for the reason that the writ petition was filed on 26.06.2021. When the matter came up for admission, by order dated 01.07.2021, this Court directed that further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 will be subject to the result of the writ petition. By virtue of the earlier observation, Ext.P3 by itself cannot survive. New employee took charge on 06.07.2021, which is subsequent to the interim order passed by this Court. Hence, Ext.P4 notification and the appointment of the new person stated to be done pursuant to Ext.P4 to the extent of accredited overseer (SC) can only be subject to the ultimate result of this writ petition. 7. Having considered this, I am inclined to allow the writ petition quashing Ext.P3. WPC NO.13071 OF 2021 7 Consequently, it will be deemed that the petitioner will continue in service till 31.03.2022. It is made clear that this will not stand in the way of Panchayat from taking disciplinary action, if any, against the petitioner before the above period for proved misconduct. It is made clear that the observations made above with reference to Ext.P4 will apply only in relation to the post notified of accredited overseer (SC). The writ petition is allowed to the above extent. **Sd/-** **SUNIL THOMAS** **JUDGE** SKP/03.02 WPC NO.13071 OF 2021 8 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13071/2021** |**APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13071/2021**|**APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13071/2021**| |---|---| |**PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:**|| |**EXHIBIT P1**|**TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT**| ||**ORDER ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND**| ||**RESPONDENT, DATED 11.11.2015.**| |**EXHIBIT P2**|**TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST**| ||**RESPONDENT VIDE NO.G.O.(RT).NO. 1149/2021/**| ||**L.S.G.D., DATED 15.06.2021.**| |**EXHIBIT P3**|**TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY**| ||**THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER, DATED**| ||**24.05.2021.**| |**EXHIBIT P4**|**TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED**| ||**BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN KERALA KAUMUDI**| ||**DAILY, DATED 17.06.2021.**| |**RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:**|| |**EXHIBIT R2(A)**|**TRUE COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AS FILE NO**| ||**M18.3055/18 DATED 15/10/2020 TO THE**| ||**PETITIONER.**| |**EXHIBIT R2(B)**|**TURE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 28/11/2020**| ||**ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF**| ||**PANCHAYATH, KOLLAM TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT R2(C)**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE GENERAL**| ||**BODY MEETING OF THE PANCHAYATH BEARING**| ||**NO.8/1 DATED 24.05.2021.**| |**EXHIBIT R2(D)**|**TRUE COPY OF MINUTES OF THE GENERAL BODY**| ||**MEETING OF THE PANCHAYATH BEARING NO.8/2**| ||**DATED 24.05.2021.**| |**EXHIBIT R2(E)**|**TRUE COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY**| ||**THIS RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.**| |**EXHIBIT R2(F)**|**TRUE COPY OF REPLY GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER**| ||**AGAINST THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY**| ||**THIS RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT R2(G)**|**TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 26/4/2019 ISSUED**| ||**BY THE RESPONDENT IN AN ORDER NO.**| ||**MGNRES/2019.**| |**EXHIBIT R2(H)**|**TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 13/5/2020**| ||**BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM.**| |**EXHIBIT R2(I)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT GIVEN BY**| ||**PERFORMANCE AUDITOR SUPERVISOR TO DISTRICT**| ||**COLLECTOR, KOLLAM**| **TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE**